ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2026
Cross-Institutional Evaluation of Large Language Models for Radiology Diagnosis Extraction: A Prompt-Engineering Perspective.
Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Who labels best? Radiologists, rules, or large language models for CT reports on pulmonary embolism.European radiology experimental · 2026Article
- A multi-agent large language model framework to automatically assess performance of a clinical AI Triage tool.npj health systems · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The rapid evolution of large language models (LLMs) offers promising opportunities for radiology report annotation, aiding in determining the presence of specific findings. This study evaluates the effectiveness of a human-optimized prompt in labeling radiology reports across multiple institutions using LLMs. Six distinct institutions collected 500 radiology reports: 100 in each of 5 categories. A standardized Python script was distributed to participating sites, allowing the use of one common locally executed LLM with a standard human-optimized prompt. The script executed the LLM's analysis for each report and compared predictions to reference labels provided by local investigators. Models' performance using accuracy was calculated, and results were aggregated centrally. The human-optimized prompt demonstrated high consistency across sites and pathologies. Preliminary analysis indicates significant agreement between the LLM's outputs and investigator-provided reference across multiple institutions. At one site, eight LLMs were systematically compared, with Llama 3.1 70b achieving the highest performance in accurately identifying the specified findings. Comparable performance with Llama 3.1 70b was observed at two additional centers, demonstrating the model's robust adaptability to variations in report structures and institutional practices. Our findings illustrate the potential of optimized prompt engineering in leveraging LLMs for cross-institutional radiology report labeling. This approach is straightforward while maintaining high accuracy and adaptability. Future work will explore model robustness to diverse report structures and further refine prompts to improve generalizability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.